Official Residences

Chris Grayling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official residences which are occupied by (a) hon. Members and (b) Members of the Government.

Tony Blair: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) of 2 November 2004, Official Report, columns 180–81W.
	There are a number of former Ministers and Prime Ministers who continue to receive special security requirements after leaving office. We therefore take into account the assessment of the threat to them. On this basis, it has been agreed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) may continue to have the use of the official residence while his security arrangements are reviewed, and appropriate measures can be put in place.

Rail Infrastructure (Investment)

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  if he will give for each year since 1995 (a) total, (b) public and (c) private investment in the rail infrastructure in (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales and (iv) Great Britain; and how much was spent on (A) track repair and maintenance, (B) station repair and maintenance, (C) new track, (D) new station facilities, (E) other infrastructure repair and maintenance and (F) new infrastructure in each case;
	(2)  if he will give for each year since 1995 (a) total, (b) public and (c) private spending on the rail infrastructure (i) per person and (ii) per track mile in (A) Scotland, (B) England, (C) Wales and (D) Great Britain.

Tony McNulty: The information is not available in the format requested. Total Government support for the rail industry is set out in table 6.2 of National Rail Trends and total investment in the rail industry is set out in table 6.4 of that document. A copy of National Rail Trends is available in the Library of the House and can be accessed on the Strategic Rail Authority's website at http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/performance statistics/nrt

Underground System

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of (a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure (i) in total, (ii) from public and (iii) from private sources for each underground/tube system in the UK in each year since 1995; and what estimate he has made of (A) track, (B) station, (C) other and (D) total repair and maintenance costs for each system in each year since 1995.

Tony McNulty: The information is not available in the format requested. The following table sets out London Underground's capital and revenue expenditure.
	
		London Underground capital and revenue expenditure £ million (outturn prices)
		
			  1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000(1) 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 Capital expenditure2, 3 226 176 134 170 252 293 418 402 668 
			 Jubilee Line Extension 587 660 476 283 655 — — — — 
			 Renewals 275 198 191 244 — — — — — 
			 Total investment 1,088 1,034 801 697 907 293 418 402 668 
			 Of which: Capital expenditure by PPP contractors — — — — — — — 20 476 
			 Revenue Expenditure 624 644 696 785 995 1,156 1,371 1,664 1,930 
		
	
	(1) In April 1999, London Underground adopted new accounting treatment for its investment expenditure which removed the category 'renewals' and reclassified such expenditure as capital or operating costs as appropriate. Therefore the figures up to and including 1998–99 are not directly comparable with those for subsequent years.
	(2) This includes the investment in fixed assets undertaken by the infracos under the PPP contracts, for those assets on LUL's balance sheet.
	(3) This excludes expenditure on assets provided under the PFI contracts, as they are not on LUL's balance sheet.
	Source:
	LUL Directors' Report and Accounts
	London Underground does not record repair and maintenance expenditure by asset type, but the following table sets out repair and maintenance costs.
	
		London Underground: Repair and maintenance, infrastructure companies costs and private finance initiative contract costs £ million (outturn prices)
		
			  1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 Repair and maintenance(4) 203 209 207 244 348 — — — — 
			 Infraco Operating Costs(5) — — — — — 435 574 617 — 
			 PPP Maintenance and Repair(6) — — — — — — — 83 824 
			 PFI contract payments(7) 4 12 15 71 117 164 200 226 197 
			 Total 207 221 222 315 465 599 774 926 1,021 
		
	
	(4) These are the costs incurred on maintaining the operational railway prior to the establishment of the Infracos as separate subsidiary companies. The 1999–2000 figure includes £91 million that under the previous accounting policy would have been included in 'Renewals'.
	(5) Total operating costs of the Infraco subsidiaries while they remained within the LUL Group, which include all maintenance expenditure in those years.
	(6) This is the element of PPP Infrastructure Service Charge allocated which is apportioned to maintenance and included in LUL's profit and loss account.
	(7) Costs include the charges for the services provided under the PFI contracts (Connect, Power, British Transport Police accommodation, Prestige and Northern Line Trains). From the date of transfer of Infraco JNP (1 Jan 2003) the Northern Line Trains contract PFI became the responsibility of Tube Lines.
	The only other underground system in the UK is Glasgow Underground, which is a devolved responsibility of the Scottish Executive and Parliament and on which the Department does not hold the information requested.

Waste

Sue Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of waste mercury were produced in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03; and how much of this was recycled.

Elliot Morley: A key source of mercury waste arises from the chlor-alkali industry. Annual figures for the three UK mercury cell chlor-alkali plants for the years in question are set out in table 1. Large amounts of mercury will no longer be required when mercury cell plants are decommissioned, although this mercury is pure enough to be re-used without further treatment. Mercury can be present in waste arising from a range of other industries, including from power generation, and mining activities, although there are no aggregated national figures available for these. Mercury is also present in used dental amalgam, some forms of lighting equipment, certain thermometers, thermostats, manometers, some batteries, switches and relays, although the use in all these applications is declining. Implementation of the WEEE Directive and the hazardous waste regulations should encourage the greater recovery and recycling of mercury from these sources.
	
		Table 1: Mercury disposal and emissions fromUK chlor-alkali plant(16) kilogrammes
		
			  Mercury in safely deposited wastes 
		
		
			 1999 4,109 
			 2000 3,408 
			 2001 3,252 
			 2002 10,994 
			 2003 21,484 
		
	
	(16) This includes all mercury-contaminated materials, such as cell components, process equipment, solid wastes from sumps, pits, demercurisation units and the brine purification process, which have been sent to authorised and properly controlled waste disposal sites.

Butler Review

Julian Lewis: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office further to the Prime Minister's answer of 14 December 2004, Official Report, column 1005W to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on the Butler Review, whether there is (a) an informal group and (b) a formal ad hoc Cabinet Committee to consider policy towards Iraq.

Tony Blair: I have been asked to reply.
	I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 October 2004, Official Report, column 1024W to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)

Armament Sales (China)

John Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the US Government on lifting the EU's embargo on the sale of armaments to the People's Republic of China.

Bill Rammell: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Committee on Strategic Export Controls on 12 January 2005, the US has a legitimate and understandable interest both in the effectiveness of the EU's system of arms control and in the stability of the east Asian region. Representatives of the UK and US Governments, at all levels, have therefore discussed the issue. However, the review of the EU arms embargo and any decisions arising from it, are to be undertaken by the EU only. The EU will take all relevant factors into account in the review.

European Union

Graham Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions would be available under the proposed EU constitution against member states in breach of their duty under Articles I-16 (a) actively and unreservedly to support the Union's common foreign and security policy and (b) to refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness.

Denis MacShane: The Article I-16 obligations referred to in the question are in substance the same as those first set out in Article J.1 (4) of the Maastricht treaty (currently Article 11(2) TEU). As under the Maastricht treaty and the treaty on European Union, member states are under the constitutional treaty required to comply in good faith with their treaty obligations, including those relating to the common foreign and security policy mentioned in Article I-16. Any consequences which might follow if a member state failed to fulfil its obligations would depend on all circumstances. But the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is excluded from common foreign and security policy issues by Article III-376.

E-mails

Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding the retention of e-mails in electronic form (a) after and (b) up to 1 January 2005; and what instructions have been given regarding the deletion of e-mails prior to 1 January 2005.

Anne McGuire: The Scotland Office continues to implement well established policies and procedures for the review and disposal of files in accordance with its administrative needs and the Public Records Act. E-mail messages that form part of the official record are saved for as long as business needs require and stored corporately in accordance with departmental record management procedures. Further e-mail guidance is available on the National Archives website at:
	http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/electronicrecords/advice/pdf/managing emails.pdf.
	No instructions were given to staff about the deletion of e-mails prior to 1 January 2005.

Homelessness

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless households on average were in (a) temporary accommodation and (b) bed and breakfast accommodation in England in each year since 1990–91.

Yvette Cooper: Local authorities report their activities under homelessness legislation quarterly, and this includes the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation as on the last day of the quarter. Tabled as follows are the numbers of such households distinguished by accommodation type, including bed and breakfast, as at 31 March for each year since 1991, together with a four quarter annual average for each year.
	
		Households in temporary accommodation1 arranged by local authorities under homelessness legislation as at 31 March, together with the annual average for each financial year England
		
			   Bed and breakfast hotels(21) Hostels/Women's refuges 
			  Total number of households Number Percentage of total Number Percentage of total 
		
		
			 March 1991 50,000 12,240 24 10,230 20 
			 Average for 1990–91 46,050 11,920 26 9,170 20 
			 March 1992 62,090 12,220 20 10,310 17 
			 Average for 1991–92 59,620 12,810 21 10,280 17 
			 March 1993 61,380 7,570 12 10,890 18 
			 Average for 1992–93 63,630 8,840 14 10,970 17 
			 March 1994 52,340 4,920 9 10,460 20 
			 Average for 1993–94 55,090 5,620 10 10,500 19 
			 March 1995 46,350 4,480 10 10,380 22 
			 Average for 1994–95 47,190 4,540 10 10,190 22 
			 March 1996 43,240 4,750 11 10,090 23 
			 Average for 1995–96 45,000 4,920 11 10,210 23 
			 March 1997 41,250 4,100 10 9,680 23 
			 Average for 1996–97 42,640 4,280 10 9,960 23 
			 March 1998 47,520 4,820 10 9,730 20 
			 Average for 1997–98 45,350 4,620 10 9,340 21 
			 March 1999 56,580 6,570 12 9,840 17 
			 Average for 1998–99 53,070 6,270 12 9,730 18 
			 March 2000 65,170 8,680 13 10,300 16 
			 Average for 1999–2000 61,810 8,160 13 10,030 16 
			 March 2001 75,200 10,860 14 10,610 14 
			 Average for 2000–01 71,920 9,770 14 10,550 15 
			 March 2002 80,440 11,840 15 9,610 12 
			 Average for 2001–02 78,190 11,840 15 10,050 13 
			 March 2003 89,400 12,070 14 10,010 11 
			 Average for 2002–03 85,160 12,560 15 9,790 11 
			 March 2004 (22)97,290 7,170 7 10,850 11 
			 Average for 2003–04 (22)94,490 9,280 10 10,540 11 
		
	
	
		
			  Private sector accommodation(23) Other types (including LA/ RSL's own stock) 
			  Number Percentage of total Number Percentage of total 
		
		
			 March 1991 5— (24)— 27,530 55 
			 Average for 1990–91 (24)— (24)— 24,960 54 
			 March 1992 25,190 41 14,370 23 
			 Average for 1991–92 22,900 38 13,640 23 
			 March 1993 26,270 44 16,200 26 
			 Average for 1992–93 27,810 44 16,010 25 
			 March 1994 20,860 40 16,100 31 
			 Average for 1993–94 23,270 42 15,710 29 
			 March 1995 14,130 30 17,360 37 
			 Average for 1994–95 16,380 35 16,080 34 
			 March 1996 11,410 26 16,990 39 
			 Average for 1995–96 12,000 27 17,880 40 
			 March 1997 14,040 34 13,430 33 
			 Average for 1996–97 11,920 28 16,490 39 
			 March 1998 14,820 31 18,150 38 
			 Average for 1997–98 14,370 32 17,030 38 
			 March 1999 19,270 34 20,900 37 
			 Average for 1998–99 17,610 33 19,470 37 
			 March 2000 20,060 31 26,130 40 
			 Average for 1999–2000 19,000 31 24,620 40 
			 March 2001 25,610 34 28,120 37 
			 Average for 2000–01 24,280 34 27,330 38 
			 March 2002 28,370 35 30,620 38 
			 Average for 2001–02 26,410 34 29,900 38 
			 March 2003 37,130 42 30,210 34 
			 Average for 2002–03 33,250 39 29,580 35 
			 March 2004 50,080 51 29,190 30 
			 Average for 2003–04 45,440 48 29,230 31 
		
	
	(20) Households in accommodation either pending a decision on their homelessness application or awaiting re-allocation of a settled home following acceptance. Excludes those households designated as "homeless at home" that have remained in their existing accommodation and have the same rights to suitable alternative accommodation as those in accommodation arranged by authorities.
	(21) From 2002 Q1 onwards, some self-contained accommodation in annex-style units previously recorded under B and B now more appropriately attributed to private sector accommodation.
	(22) Provisional.
	(23) Private sector properties leased, or under licence, to social landlords, or rented directly from a private landlord.
	(24) Included in "other".
	Note:
	Totals may not equal the sum of components because of rounding.
	Source:
	ODPM P1E homelessness returns
	The latest quarterly Statistical Release on statutory homelessness, published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 13 December, presents more detailed analyses from 1997 up to the end of the third quarter of 2004. Key summary, including numbers of households in various forms of temporary accommodation, at local authority level is contained in an associated supplementary table. These have been made available in the Library of the House, and via the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

Child Trust Funds

Mark Fisher: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children in Stoke on Trent are eligible for the Child Trust Fund; and what percentage of children in Stoke on Trent this represents.

Stephen Timms: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on 30 November 2004, Official Report, columns 87–88W. All children born and living in the UK since 1 September 2002 whose families receive child benefit will be eligible for the Child Trust Fund.

Earnings (Scotland)

Michael Moore: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the (a) average and (b) median (i) weekly and (ii) hourly gross earnings (A) including and (B) excluding overtime is of (1) managers, (2) senior professional, (3) associate professional and technical, (4) administrative and secretarial, (5) skilled trades, (6) personal service, (7) sales and customer service, (8) process, plant and machine operatives and (9) elementary occupational groups are in each local authority area in Scotland, broken down by (x) male, (y) female and (z) all workers.

Stephen Timms: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
	Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Michael Moore, dated 20 January 2005
	The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on earnings in Scotland. I am replying in his absence. (209268)
	Average earnings are estimated from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) and are provided for employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period, by their place of work. This is the standard definition used for Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings tables. The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings does not collect data on the self-employed and people who do unpaid work. The survey, carried out in April of each year, is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in the United Kingdom. It has a one per cent. sample of all employees.
	Data for local authority areas in Scotland broken down by occupation groups are not currently available; however data for Scotland broken down by occupation groups are available on the National Statistics web site as follows:
	Weekly gross earnings including overtime:
	http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme labour/ASHE 2004 inc/tab3 la.xls
	Weekly gross earnings excluding overtime:
	http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme labour/ASHE 2004 inc/tab3 2a.xls
	Hourly gross earnings including overtime:
	http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme labour/ASHE 2004 inc/tab3 5a.xls
	Hourly gross earnings excluding overtime:
	http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme labour/ASHE 2004 jnc/tab3 6a.xls
	A number of estimates have been removed from the published tables to maintain the confidentiality of individual employees.

National Insurance Fund

Adam Price: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was allocated from the National Insurance Fund to (a) the state pension and (b) sickness benefit in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

Chris Pond: I have been asked to reply.
	The information is in the following table.
	
		
			   £ million 
			  Retirement pension Incapacity benefit 
		
		
			 1999–2000 37,775 6,790 
			 2000–01 38,718 6,766 
			 2001–02 41,893 6,749 
			 2002–03 44,338 6,758 
			 2003–04 46,457 6,718 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Retirement pension includes contributory retirement pension basic and earnings related expenditure.
	2. Incapacity benefit includes short term lower and higher, long term and earnings related expenditure.
	3. Figures are for Great Britain and rounded to the nearest million.

NHS Expenditure

Norman Lamb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will update the estimates of (a) the total NHS spending in the UK in 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 in figure 6.1 of the Budget 2002 and (b) gross UK NHS Spending as a proportion of GDP in 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 in figure 6.2 of the Budget 2002.

Paul Boateng: The information is as follows:
	
		Table 6.1: NHS spending in the UK £ billion
		
			  2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 Average real growth 
		
		
			 Total UK public sector health spending(28) 88.6 97.4 107.2 7.1 
			 Of which: 
			 England 76.4 83.8 92.1 6.9 
		
	
	(28) The public sector health spending figures are based on the UN Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG), the international standard as used in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2004.
	
		Table 6.2: UK health spending as a proportion of GDP Percentage of GDP
		
			  2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 
		
		
			 Total UK health spending 8.6 8.9 9.2 
			 Of which:
			 Total UK public sector spending 7.1 7.5 7.8 
			 Total UK private sector spending(29) 1.4 1.4 1.4 
		
	
	(29) Private health spending is based on the definition used for ONS Health Accounts and is assumed to stay at a constant share of GDP

Higher Education

Bob Laxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on higher education in Derby, north in each year between 1997 and 2004.

Kim Howells: Derby university is the only Higher Educational Institution (HEI) located within the parliamentary constituency of Derby, north hence all data in the answer relate to this institution.
	Public funding for Derby university from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is shown in the first table.
	
		Recurrent funding for University of Derby1, 2 £000
		
			   Of which: 
			  Recurrent funds for teaching and research Teaching Research Funds for rewarding and developing staff (32) 
		
		
			 1997–98 17,408 17,067 341 — 
			 1998–99 20,716 20,295 422 — 
			 1999–00 22,064 21,612 452 — 
			 2000–01 23,140 22,683 457 — 
			 2001–02 24,066 23,087 452 528 
			 2002–03 24,690 23,667 234 789 
			 2003–04 27,242 25,734 317 1,191 
			 2004–05 30,082 29,766 315 — 
		
	
	(30) HEFCE is not able to provide data on funding allocated in respect of students ordinarily resident in Derby North.
	(31) Funding figures show HEFCE recurrent grant for teaching and research only. They exclude other HEFCE grants such as for capital and other special initiatives. They also exclude funding from other public sources, such as the NHS, TTA, LSC, research councils etc.
	(32) Funding for rewarding and developing staff was first allocated for 2001–02 and transferred into teaching grant in 2004–05.
	Source:
	HEFCE
	Data on hardship and other bursaries allocated to Derby university are shown in the second table.
	
		Hardship/access to learning fund allocations, fee waivers and opportunity bursaries allocations—University of Derby 1997–98 to 2004–05
		
			  Hardship fund/access to learning fund allocations Fee waivers Opportunity bursaries allocations 
		
		
			 1997–98 134,363 n/a n/a 
			 1998–99 501,055 n/a n/a 
			 1999–00 759,046 n/a n/a 
			 2000–01 983,402 33,085 n/a 
			 2001–02 1, 2822,812 44,219 85,000 
			 2002–03 1,2848,665 43,438 143,000 
			 2003–04 (34)817,981 62,711 201,500 
			 2004–05 (34)917,730 (35)30,322 (36)112,500 
		
	
	n/a = Not applicable
	(33) For hardship/access to learning funds, initial allocations are shown for 2001–2 and 2002–03. The allocations were later adjusted—usually upwards by up to 10 per cent.--because in these years the guidance was produced prior to the data—necessary to model final allocations—could be made available.
	(34) From 2003–04 onwards actual allocations are shown as due to developments in the timetable for gathering data this information was available much earlier. Allocations could also be affected by the redistribution of unspent funding recovered from under spending institutions later in the financial year.
	(35) From 2004–05 the fee waiver budget was incorporated into new statutory support package for part time students. Some funding was retained—up to £3 million nationally—for transitional protection for eligible continuing students who received a fee waiver in 2003–04 but whose fees were not entirely met by the new package.
	(36) There were no opportunity bursaries for new students in 2004–05 as the bursaries were replaced by the HE grant from 2004–05. This figure relates to continuing bursary instalments only.
	Data on public expenditure paid to students at Derby university by the Student Loans Company (SLC) in respect of grants, income-contingent loan cash outlay, and tuition fees for academic years 1999/00 to 2004/05 (provisional) are shown in the third table.
	Data are not available at the level requested prior to academic year 1999/00.
	
		SLC expenditure on grants1, 2, income-contingent loan cash outlay2, and tuition fees3 paid to students studying at Derby university 4 academic years 1999/2000 to 2004/055
		
			 Academic Year SLC Expenditure (£ million) 
		
		
			 1999/00 19.2 
			 2000/01 25.0 
			 2001/02 26.5 
			 2002/03 28.0 
			 2003/04 31.0 
			 2004/05 32.2 
		
	
	(37) Up to and including academic year 2003/04 data on grant expenditure for student support scheme relates to additional allowances/grants to eligible students for extra help depending on their circumstances, e.g. students with disabilities, students with dependents, single parent students, those incurring certain travel costs, and those who have recently left care. In addition, data for 2004/05 include expenditure on the higher education grant which was introduced for new students in 2004/05 to help cover the cost of participating in higher education.
	(38) Students domiciled in England and Wales.
	(39) Students domiciled in England, Wales and the EU.
	(40) Data also includes planned expenditure.
	(41) Provisional (as at 14 January 2005).
	Data on public expenditure for mortgage style loans, part-time fee grants and part-time course grants are not readily available at the level requested. I will include details of these expenditures in the house library when available.

Industrial Training Boards

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the requirement for exhibition contractors to be registered with the Construction Industry Training Board was last reviewed; and if she will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis: The requirement would only be reviewed at the request of either the employers concerned or the Construction Industry Training Board. I have received so such request but am expecting one shortly from the British Exhibition Contractors Association on behalf of the employers.

Directors of Infection Prevention and Control

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Department plans to publish guidance on the role of Directors of Infection Prevention and Control.

Melanie Johnson: Guidance on competencies for directors of infection prevention and control was distributed in May 2004 and is available on the Department's website at http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/LettersAndCirculars/Dear ColleagueLetters/DearColleagueLettersArticle/fs/en? CONTENT ID=4083982&chk=Z4VWx7. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Paddington Basin Health Campus

John Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the consultants to whom NHS monies have been disbursed for work related to the Paddington Basin Health Campus since the beginning of the project, broken down by amount of money.

Stephen Ladyman: Table 1 shows a list of consultants and payments made for advice provided since the beginning of the Paddington Health Campus project. Table 2 summarises the total expenditure on consultants by year. From 1999, the Paddington Health Campus was the responsibility of the West London Partnership Forum, hosted by the former Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority (KCW HA). In November 2000, responsibility for the costs of the project transferred to St. Mary's National Health Service Trust. Thousands.
	
		Table 1: Consultants employed by Paddington Health Campus project
		
			  £000 
		
		
			 Legal  
			 Berwin Leighton Paisner(45) 735 
			 Capsticks 4 
			 Finance  
			 PricewaterhouseCoopers(45) 520 
			 Mike Flaxman Associates(45) 419 
			 Ernst & Young 30 
			 Imperial College 15 
			 Finnamore 34 
			 Royal Hospitals 2 
			 De Vere Healthcare 84 
			 Design & Technical  
			 BDP 94 
			 Sheppard Robson(45) 101 
			 Durrow Management 10 
			 Turner & Townsend 105 
			 King Sturge/CML/HL 35 
			 Davis Langdon(45) 493 
			 Studio 41 332 
			 IBS (consortium inc WSP and Tangram) 911 
			 FM support costs  
			 Healthgain 10 
			 EC Harris1 170 
			 Decant, project planning/design:  
			 Love Jenkins 2 
			 TBA Services Management 23 
			 Hornagold & Hills 146 
			 ICT  
			 DQS (formerly Saba)(45) 106 
			 HealthSystems 2 
			 Silicon 16 
			 Pagoda 46 
			 Property Advice  
			 Derek Home 10 
			 Insignia Richard Ellis 24 
			 Atis Real Wetherall1 122 
			 VGA (District Valuer) 6 
			 Monatgue Evans 123 
			 Communications  
			 Nexus 19 
			 London Communications Agency(45) 12 
			 Various writers/photography 9 
			 Christow 144 
			 Audit  
			 Deloitte & Touche 14 
			 Parkhill Audit Agency 37 
			 Equipment Advice  
			 United Medical Group (UMG)(45) 77 
			 MTS 17 
			 Derek Dipper Associates 3 
			 Insurance — 
			 Willis(45) 8 
			 Accommodation Advice  
			 Hunter and Partners 25 
			 Planning Application Support  
			 GL Hearn(45) 212 
			 Terry Farrell & Partners (consortium inc Arup, Environ & Gillespie)(45) 68 
			 Ove Arup(45) 145 
			 Savell Bird & Axon 80 
			 Gordon Ingram Associates 36 
			 SOM 1,037 
			 TGA Consulting Services 5 
			 Virtual Artwork 14 
			 City of Westminster 6 
			 Museum of London Archaeology Service 6 
			 Grand Total to 31 December 2004 7,347 
		
	
	(45) Consultants currently contracted to PHC. Thousands
	
		Table 2: Paddington Health Campus adviser costs by year
		
			£000 
		
		
			 West London Partnership Forum (WLPF)—KCW HA WLPF October 2000 1,479 
			 PHC Project Team—St. Mary's NHS Trust November 2000 March 2001 231 
			 PHC Project Team—St Mary's NHS Trust April 2001 March 2002 :520 
			 PHC Project Team—St. Mary's NHS Trust April 2002 March 2003 947 
			 PHC Project Team— St. Mary's NHS Trust April 2003 March 2004 2,991 
			 Previous years' total — — 6,168 
			 PHC Project Team (St Mary's NHS Trust)(46) April 2004 December 2004 1,179 
			 Total Adviser costs to 31 December 2004 — — 7,347 
		
	
	(46) Includes accruals for estimated charges to December 20O4.